Julio María Sanguinetti: “Social networks have weakened the system of political representation”

A strong institutional framework and committed citizens are, in the opinion of the former Uruguayan president Julio Maria Sanguinetti, two of the main weapons against populism. Here you take a look at the current political landscape and the last 30 years in Latin America.

“Democracy is an institutional system that requires a participatory and rational citizen”, says Sanguinetti, and warns that social networks have generated a citizen who “live the delusion of a debate that is an out-of-tune and contradictory chorus of messages by the millions”. What follows is a summary of the interview with the Uruguayan lawyer, journalist and twice president (1985-1990 and 1995-2000) on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Grupo de Diarios América (GDA).

—30 years ago, Latin America was experiencing what we could define as a “democratic rebirth” after the dictatorships of previous decades. In addition, Mercosur was born with the illusion of effective economic integration. Looking at the region with the perspective of these years, have we advanced or regressed in terms of political freedoms and economic development?

In the year 91, when the Grupo de Diarios América was born, some very momentous events had just occurred. A universal one, which is the fall of the Berlin Wall. Because in the name of Marxist ideology and the Cuban revolution, Latin America had caught fire with guerrillas, and then coups to fight those guerrillas.

That is why the 60s and 70s were times of guerrillas and coups d’état. The 1980s became emblematically restorative. In this climate of democratic optimism, on the one hand Mercosur was born, and on the other hand it was assumed that political democracy and market economy had arrived forever.

There is universally no doubt that the market economy succeeded. For this reason, the greatest power that still calls itself communist, like China, went to the market economy. Political democracy, on the other hand, has not had the same luck. Unfortunately we have not had the desired stability.

Presidents who have had to go before, political trials that have brought down presidents, a very strong judicialization of politics, and very hard crises even in our nearby region. Argentina in late 2001 and early 2002 had a tremendous economic and political crisis that led to five presidents in one month. Brazil had a political trial and the fall of a head of state. Something similar happened in Bolivia.

“What did those crises reveal?”

That democracy had not reached the necessary political maturity. And there is another political phenomenon that appears more or less in the 90s with Hugo Chávez, who is the Latin American populist. It is an extraordinary and unexpected phenomenon.

– How do you define populism?

Populism is a category that has been difficult to define, but we can characterize it. He is born within the democratic structure, normally comes to power through an election, then abuses constitutional power, normally puts the budget at the service of his cause, and the president is installed as a figure of savior, redeemer, beyond of the role of that president who is elected for a mandate. And there the overflow begins.

The characteristics of the populist leader also occurred in the United States. Donald Trump is a populist. And I would say that the grotesque overflow of the assault on Congress is the typical expression of a populist. Trump, however, could not transform the US regime because strong institutions prevented him from doing so.

Chávez, on the other hand, in the fragile Venezuelan institutional framework, installed himself in power after having had a coup attempt and having been amnesty. He has been in power for fourteen years. Then he leaves Maduro who becomes a more authoritarian ruler every day and whose original legitimacy no longer exists.

Because Chávez had a legitimacy of origin, although he did not later have legitimacy of exercise. Maduro never had a legitimacy of origin.

—There are populists on the right and on the left.

Yes. I believe that Jair Bolsonaro is a leader with populist characteristics, because he has played very outside of Parliament, because he has played very outside of constitutionality. However, the Brazilian institutional regime resists, and that seems very important to me. Something similar to the characteristics of Argentine populism, because Kirchnerism is a Peronist drift.

—You were talking about the importance of institutions resisting the onslaught of populism.

That is where the big issue comes: if the institution resists or does not resist. In the United States it resisted, in Venezuela it did not resist. In Brazil it has resisted, and in Argentina it has resisted as well. Now, with enormous difficulties.

The proof is in the crises that have been. The 2001 crisis, the impeachment attempts; the open judicialization of Argentine political life, something that one and the other say. Because justice is a political factor that offers no guarantee, it says so [Mauricio] Macri and the lady says so [Cristina] Fernández de Kirchner.

—At the end of September, in an interview with the EFE agency, Mario Vargas Llosa was asked if in Latin America there are no other options than “left-wing populism or right-wing neoliberalism”. The Nobel Prize for Literature replied: “Yes, there are more options”, but “in Latin America there is no fertile ground for those possibilities.” Do you share this opinion?

Latin America has had moments and governments of great democratic quality. When you think of Venezuela, which has fallen into populism, however at the time of our dictatorships it was a democratic symbol. So the issue is that democracy is a fragile plant. Today we look at learned Europe from the magnificent perspective of post-World War II democratic restoration, and the construction of the wonderful European Community.

But let us not forget that this learned Europe, which inspired us and continues to inspire us in many things, generated nothing less than Spanish Falangism, Portuguese corporatism, Italian fascism and German Nazism. And today there are far-right movements in Europe that are beginning to claim that totalitarian past.

It means that the problem is we humans, beyond fertile land and infertile land. Europe was fertile ground for the most dangerous populisms in history. Because Hitler was also voted in, he was born out of an election. With that I am saying that Latin America has had great moments of democracy, and also serious eclipses.

—You have insisted a lot on citizen participation. Why?

Democracy is an institutional system that requires a participatory and rational citizen. Democracy is arithmetic, Aristotle said, and it has a degraded form that is demagoguery. And demagoguery depends on whether it is rewarded or fought by the citizen. That is a Latin American evil. Because you travel through Latin America and talk to citizens who seem unencumbered. The theme is citizen rationality. That is why it is very important that citizens have a great participation in political parties. Because the parties are the great stabilizing channels.

And here comes another topic that is very much of our time, which is social networks. Social media has weakened the system of political representation. Social networks have generated a citizen who represents himself, who puts something on his Facebook and believes that he has shaken the government, who did not even know about his Facebook. Live the delusion of a debate that is an out-of-tune and contradictory chorus of messages by the millions. And that as a consequence he has been disengaging, he feels that he does not need a party as he does not need a union or a parish. Because before the citizen went to a corporation that in some way could represent him, and that mediated with power.

– How do you act before the phenomenon of social networks?

The political leader taking care of the parties, the journalist taking care of the full exercise of their freedom, the businessman trying to be within the rules of the game and not questioning politics for their mistakes, the judges exercising a responsible and prestigious magistracy far from the world of the parties, and the citizen feeling that he has a duty to fulfill. The democratic system is all that set. When the citizen believes that he does not need a party, we are on the road, sometimes without realizing it, of the authoritarian temptation.

– Are you in favor of regulating social networks?

I would say that it is very difficult to regulate them. Because who regulates the regulator. The Romans already said it, who guards the custodian. And that is the big problem. One can imagine custody regimes. In our internal life in countries we have a custodian of freedom of opinion, which is justice. All press freedom laws try to preserve the fullest possible freedom and have the judge as guarantor. Is there a universal judge who can guard these networks? We have not yet managed to imagine it.

—What are the greatest risks to freedom of expression in Latin America today?

The risks are, as always, authoritarian governments and not having an independent justice; and now also a citizen who does not understand that social networks are not journalism because there is no responsible editor.